Title
Sumcad vs. Court of Industrial Relations
Case
G.R. No. L-18716
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1963
The Supreme Court ruled that a dismissed employee's allegations of coercion to join a union and subsequent dismissal were valid, affirming his right to choose a labor organization and finding the union guilty of unfair labor practice.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18716)

Facts:

  • Clemente Sumcad is the petitioner against the Court of Industrial Relations and the Philippine Marine Officers Guild.
  • On May 31, 1955, the Guild was certified as the exclusive representative of marine officers and engineers of William Lines, Inc.
  • A collective bargaining agreement was signed on December 30, 1957, which included a closed-shop provision requiring all marine officers and engineers to be Union members.
  • The agreement mandated immediate dismissal for any officer or engineer deemed not in good standing by the Union.
  • Sumcad, the Master of a vessel, refused to join the Union due to legal restrictions against joining a labor organization of his subordinates.
  • The Union sought his dismissal, leading to a notice from the Company on February 3, 1958, demanding Union affiliation within 24 hours.
  • Sumcad filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction to prevent his dismissal, but the court dismissed his case.
  • After his dismissal, Sumcad filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Company and the Union.
  • The Union's motion to dismiss was granted after Sumcad and the Company reached a settlement, which the court approved on May 27, 1961.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Clemente Sumcad, setting aside the orders of the Court of Industrial Relations.
  • The case was remanded for fur...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court's decision was based on the Industrial Peace Act, which allows employees to join any labor organization of their choice.
  • The Court highlighted that coercing employees in exercising their rights constitutes an unfair labor practice under Section 4 of the Act.
  • It reasoned that whether or not Sumcad was cov...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.